Integrity and Personal Responsibility

 2  If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, 3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4 If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.

5 “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man’s field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard.

6 “If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution.

7 “If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man’s house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. 8 If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s property. 9 For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God. The one whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.

10 “If a man gives to his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep safe, and it dies or is injured or is driven away, without anyone seeing it, 11 an oath by the Lord shall be between them both to see whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor’s property. The owner shall accept the oath, and he shall not make restitution. 12 But if it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner. 13 If it is torn by beasts, let him bring it as evidence. He shall not make restitution for what has been torn.

14 “If a man borrows anything of his neighbor, and it is injured or dies, the owner not being with it, he shall make full restitution. 15 If the owner was with it, he shall not make restitution; if it was hired, it came for its hiring fee.” – Exodus 22:2-15 ESV

These laws could be summed up with the simple adage: Honesty is the best policy. When it comes to human relationships, God puts a high priority on integrity and morality. He expects His people to do the right thing and, when they don’t, He demands that they make amends. God created human beings to live in a communal environment that requires close interaction and a sense of interdependency. The behavior of one affects all. So, when crafting the code of conduct that would regulate life within His covenant community, God included laws that would encourage honesty and mutual accountability. In His covenant community, no man was to be an island. Everyone’s individual behavior had corporate implications.

In giving the Decalogue, God covered the moral law concerning theft.

“You shall not steal.” – Exodus 20:15 ESV

This eighth commandment prohibited theft. Even within the communal context of the nation of Israel, people were allowed to own private property. It was not a collective, where everyone shared all things in common. Instead, individuals could own their own homes, possess flocks and herds, and enjoy the benefits and rights of ownership. But God knew this arrangement, in conjunction with the effects of the fall, would result in inequities that produced coveteousness and jealousy. The have-nots would become envious of the haves and be tempted to resort to theft to balance the playing field.

So, these commands are examples of the moral law (Don’t steal) applied as civil law. What were the people of Israel to do when someone was caught in the act of stealing? How were they supposed to respond when an individual damaged property belonging to someone else? The prohibition against stealing had to be nuanced and parsed out so that it made sense in a variety of different scenarios because human beings have an uncanny ability to justify their actions – even the bad ones. 

The first case involves someone who breaks into a house with the intent to steal. But if the homeowner catches the intruder in the act and kills him, it is to be considered an act of self-defense. He will be considered innocent of murder. But the outcome is quite different if the homeowner kills the thief in broad daylight. In that case, the claim of self-defense is waived and replaced with a conviction of murder. There is no explanation given for this variance in outcomes, but it would appear that the difference has to do with the threat of bodily harm. A homeowner who catches someone breaking and entering in the middle of the night has no way of knowing the intentions of the intruder. Fearing the threat of personal harm, the homeowner has the right to defend himself, his family, and his property. But with the rising of the sun, a different light is shed on the very same scenario. It becomes easier to discern the perpetrator’s intentions. Theft does not justify murder. The threat of stolen property does not give the homeowner the right to take another man’s life.

Another way of interpreting this law is that if a man is killed in the act of breaking and entering, he will not be found guilty of theft. And there will be no restitution required because he has paid with his life. But if the thief accomplishes his mission and lives to see the next day, he will be held accountable. He will be required to pay for his crime. If he is unable to make restitution, he is to be sold and the proceeds used to reimburse his victim. If he is caught with the stolen property in hand, he will be required to compensate the aggrieved party at double its value. 

Verses 5 and 6 deal with cases of criminal negligence. These two scenarios cover inadvertent and unintentional damage done to someone else’s property. In the first case, an individual is guilty of allowing his flocks or herds to damage another individual’s property. They have overgrazed the land of a neighbor. Since there were no fences in those days, it was easy for these kinds of accidents to happen. But this did not excuse one man from respecting the rights of another. If damage was done, the guilty party was expected to make restitution.

If a man started a fire to clear his own land, but it spread to a neighbor’s field, destroying his harvested and stacked grain, he was to be held accountable.

“…he who started the fire shall make full restitution.” – Exodus 22:6 ESV

An apology would not suffice. An admission of guilt was to be accompanied by an exchange of compensation. Harm was done and payment must be made. 

The commands that follow have to do with cases of personal liability and responsibility. In a day when banks were non-existent, people were forced to depend upon others for the safekeeping of their valuables. So, if a man placed his personal property in the care of a friend and those goods were stolen, what was the proper protocol to follow? Who was responsible? There was no FDIC to cover the loss. So, what was the aggrieved party to do?

If the thief who stole the goods was caught, he was to make restitution. But if there was no one to pin the crime on, the matter was to be brought before God. In a case like this, it would only be natural for suspicion to arise concerning the trustworthiness of the one who had been entrusted with the goods. If the valuables disappeared while under his watch, should he be held responsible for the victim’s compensation?

In these kinds of cases, the matter was to be brought before God.

“…the owner of the house shall come near to God to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property.” – Exodus 22:8 ESV

The Hebrew word used here is ha’elohim and it can be translated as “the gods.” It is most likely a reference to the elders within the community who were assigned the task of judging these kinds of situations. This was the protocol established by Moses on the advice of Jethro, his father-in-law.

“…look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves.” – Exodus 18:21-22 ESV

These trustworthy men were to assess the situation and determine the guilt or innocence of the one from whose home the goods were taken. If the judges arrive at a guilty verdict, the neighbor was to make restitution, paying the victim double the value of the stolen property.

If the missing property happened to be an ox, sheep, or goat, the same criteria were to be applied. If the judges deemed the neighbor did nothing wrong, the owner of the property was to accept their verdict as final and binding. But if they determined the neighbor to be guilty of theft, he was expected to make full restitution.

The final case involves responsibility for borrowed goods. If a man borrows anything of value from a neighbor, he will be held responsible for its care and ultimate return. If it is stolen, he will compensate his neighbor for its value. If it is damaged, he will make restitution. But God provides an important caveat. If the owner of the object is present when the item is damaged, the borrower is not to be held accountable. If it involves the case of an animal being rented out and the animal is injured or killed, the owner will receive compensation from the rental price he charged. Any loss he suffers is to be written off as the cost of doing business.

These laws, while quite specific, are not intended to be exhaustive in nature. They provide practical principles for dealing with the myriad of scenarios that might come up in daily life. Communal living can be difficult. Living in close proximity to others can lead to all kinds of conflicts and create a perfect storm of controversies that can do damage to the community and bring dishonor to the name of God. So, the Almighty went out of His way to establish clear criteria for how to live with integrity in the midst of community.

English Standard Version (ESV) The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001

New Living Translation (NLT) Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

On the Offensive.

2 Corinthians 10

We destroy every proud obstacle that keeps people from knowing God. We capture their rebellious thoughts and teach them to obey Christ. – 2 Corinthians 10:5 NLT

Paul was under attack. There were those in Corinth who were questioning the legitimacy of his apostleship and causing others in the church to reject his authority. For Paul, this meant war. Not because he was prideful and in need of their praise and respect. He wasn't upset because people were talking about him or even because they disliked him. It was all about his God-given authority and the integrity of the Gospel. Paul had been commissioned by Jesus Christ Himself as he lay by the side of the road to Damascus, having lost his sight due to the glory of the risen Lord. Jesus had told Paul that day, "The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and hear him speak. For you are to be his witness, telling everyone what you have seen and heard. What are you waiting for? Get up and be baptized.  Have your sins washed away by calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:14-16 NLT).

Ever since that day, Paul had been on a mission to fulfill his commission. The church in Corinth existed because Paul had obeyed God's call on his life. He had told them about the life-changing, sin-cancelling, grace-giving salvation available through Jesus Christ. Paul had told them all that he had seen and heard. He had been a faithful, unfailing spokesman for God, and now his authority was being questioned. These new believers in Christ were being led to doubt Paul's word and to reject his teachings as authoritative. Paul could have cared less about what they thought about him as a person, but when they stopped accepting his words as coming from God, he was forced to go on the offensive. He viewed this as a battle for the spiritual lives of the believers in Corinth. "We are human, but we don't wage war as humans do. We use God's mighty weapons, not worldly weapons, to knock down the strongholds of human reasoning and to destroy false arguments" (2 Corinthians 10:3-4 NLT). Paul was going to do everything in his power to tear down the false teachings and human presuppositions that were wreaking havoc on the church in Corinth. They may have been well-meaning, but their efforts had been destructive. By questioning Paul's authority, they had led others to reject the very word of God. Paul knew that his authority had been given to him by God. He had been sent to Corinth by God. Everything he had taught them had been in keeping with the message given to him by Christ Himself. Paul had never strayed outside the boundaries of his God-given authority.

Paul had had to address some fairly difficult issues in his letters to the Corinthians. He had tackled some tough topics that probably offended many in the church there. He had dealt with moral and ethical issues. He had exposed areas of sin that they would have preferred had remained hidden. In his "severe letter" written some time between 1st and 2nd Corinthians, he had evidently addressed some topics that were difficult for the Corinthians to accept. But he had done it all as part of his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. His ministry had never been a popularity contest. He wasn't out to win friends and influence enemies. He was a messenger of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and he had been faithful to his calling. He had a right and responsibility to speak honestly and boldly, proclaiming not only the Good News of Jesus Christ, but the bad news regarding sin and its impact on the lives of men. Paul didn't just preach salvation. He proclaimed sanctification. He made it painfully clear that a new life in Christ required a new way of living. Eternal life was to have temporal ramifications. An encounter with the Savior was to result in a change in behavior. Paul preached a message of sanctification or being set apart. He called the people of Corinth to live lives of distinctiveness, modeling what it means to be transformed by the power of God. And that was a message that was no less popular then as it is today. But Paul was willing to do battle over it. If the Gospel doesn't transform lives here and now, it has no power. If it can't make us new creations in this life, it doesn't have the power to provide us with eternal life. That was a message Paul was willing to fight and die for. So should we.

Father, we sometimes shy away from saying those things we fear might come across as negative or unacceptable. We play it way too safe, mincing our words and lowering our expectations out of a fear of man. Give us the boldness and faithfulness of Paul. May we recognize that we too have been commissioned by God to deliver His message to a lost and dying world. Not only are we to call the lost to salvation, but the saved to sanctification. We are to call Your people to a life of distinctiveness. We have a God-given authority and responsibility to call one another to daily life change through the power of the Holy Spirit. Help us to live up to our calling, boldly and unapologetically.  Amen.

Father Versus Friend.

Proverbs 19

“Discipline your children while there is hope. Otherwise you will ruin their lives.” – Proverbs 19:18 NLT

As the father of six children, I know a fair amount about raising kids. Notice I didn't say I knew a lot about raising kids WELL. In thirty-plus years of parenting, I have made my fair share of mistakes, and I continue to make them. But one of the most significant battles I have faced as a father is the temptation to try and be my children's best friend, rather than their father. Here's how it looks. Any time I have let slide some less-than-acceptable behavior because I didn't want to run the risk of making them mad at me, I have traded in being a father for being a friend. When I have refused to punish their actions because I wanted to avoid the confrontation, I have made friendship more important than fatherhood. And every time I have made being a friend to my kids the driving factor in our relationship, I have done them a disservice. My kids don't need me to be their best buddy, they need me to be their dad. And sometimes that role requires me to discipline and train them. Turning a blind eye to their behavior is not love, it's a form of child abuse. When I do it, I am allowing them to act in such a way that is unacceptable and potentially harmful to their future. The Proverbs call us to discipline our children while there is still hope. In other words, there is a window of opportunity in which we can instill into our kids the kind of discipline that will ultimately manifest itself in self-discipline. We are called to teach and train them. We are commanded to encourage them and, at times, admonish them. The desire to have them like me is a dangerous one. It seems so worthwhile and right. But how many times have we sacrificed their future well-being because we refused to teach them the consequences of their actions? That kind of parenting can ruin their lives. It makes them selfish and self-centered. It teaches them that the world revolves around them. It encourages them to become self-focused children who grow up to become self-absorbed, narcissistic adults.

Coddling and caving into our kids now will only ruin them later. We are called to be their parents, not their best friends. That doesn't mean we don't have to worry about whether our children like us or not. But it does mean that we may have to run the risk of making them angry at times in order to help make them godly. Giving in to their every whim is not good for them, but simply bad parenting. Over the years, I have often found myself refusing to discipline my children just because I didn't want to be unpopular. I have stayed quiet when I should have spoken up. I have looked the other way when I have should have pointed out what I saw. I have avoided when I should have confronted. Parenting is a long-term commitment. If we focus on short-term gains, not only will we lose, so will our children. We need to view what we do as an investment that pays future dividends, not a quick-fix remedy that makes our kids happy for the moment. When we parent that way we aren't doing our kids any favors. While our children may not appreciate our discipline now, a day is coming when they will look back and recognize our efforts with gratitude not regret.

Father, help me be faithful to remain firm in my role as the disciplinarian of my kids. Don't let me sacrifice the long-term goals for short-term gains. But also make sure I always discipline in love, not anger. Amen.